a seemingly lethal electric shock to someone they think ..

ADVANTAGES

One powerful variable Milgram manipulated was . In this version of the experiment, subjects ran in groups of three at a time. Two subjects were confederates and one was a naïve subject. When the shock apparatus reached 150 volts, one of the confederates stood up, announced he could not go on, and took a seat at the other end of the room. At the 210-volt level, the second confederate did the same thing. With both the confederates now refusing to go on and sitting on the other side of the room, the experimenter made strong efforts to get the third subject (the naïve subject) to continue alone. About 9 out of 10 people refused to obey under these circumstances.

Milgram was wrong: we don’t obey authority, but we do …

Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?

A fake shock machine engineered to look like a ..

Photo provided by Flickr
Part of the reason why the established standards for working with human subjects and why Institutional Review Boards exist today is because of Milgram's work.In his 2004 biography, author Thomas Blass noted that social psychology is often dismissed as something that simply proves so-called "common sense." Through his surprising results, Milgram was able to demonstrate that the things we think we know about ourselves and our behavior in social groups may not necessarily be true. In essence, Milgram was able to shine a light on a subtopic of psychology that some may view as unimportant, but that in reality reveals important truths about human behavior."A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act, and without pangs of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority," Milgram explained of his work.Milgram's research on obedience shocked people back during the 1960s, but his findings are just as relevant and stunning to this day.

and the imposing-looking shock generator machine was a fake

Photo provided by Flickr
Wallace with a dickey ticker. In the Australian study a female student replaced him. Evaluation of Milgram’s work It is traditional to split this into two main sections: validity and ethics

Experimental (or internal) Validity Internal validity considers whether the procedure is measuring what the researchers believe. In this case is it measuring obedience to authority? Did the participants taking part in the study actually believe that they were administering electric shocks to Mr Wallace? Orne & Holland (1968) believe that participants volunteering to take part in psychological studies must realise that the real purpose of the study is going to be disguised. In this case why would the experimenter stand by and let poor old Mr Wallace cry out in pain without stepping in.

Ethical Guidelines in Psychology: A Cost-Benefit …

The "Game of Death" segment as recorded for France 2, (a French public television channel), was intended by its main organiser, Christophe Nick, to be a reality TV recreation of the Milgram Obedience Experiment.

Why was the Milgram experiment considered unethical

We all know about Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments, in which volunteers believed that they had shocked other volunteers to death, just because the experimenter had told them they were expected to. But a new book called by Australian journalist and psychologist Gina Perry revisits Milgram's original research documentation and concludes that Milgram fudged his conclusions.

Stanley Milgram Biography: His Influence on Psychology

As there was another person who was giving the shocks, the real participant may have been more in the agentic state because they had less responsibility

Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures.